MUHAMMNAD IQBAL MAHAR, J.---Through instant Jail appeal, appellant Mohammad Aslam son of Qaimuddin Dahiri has challenged the judgment dated 09.01.2013 passed by learned Judge Anti-T errorism Court Naushehro Feroze, in Special Case No,51 of 2012, arising out of crime No,207/2010 of Police Station Moro, whereby he was convicted for offence under Section 365-A, P.P.C. read with Section 7 of Anti-T errorism Act, 1997 and sentenced to suffer R.I for Life, he was further convicted for offence punishable under Section 506/2, P.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs,10,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine to serve S.I for six(06) months more. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently with benefit of Section 382- B, Cr .P.C.
2. Precisely , prosecution case is that on 15.02.2010 complainant Mohammad Hayat Depar along with Ghulam Murtaza, Hazoor Bux and Naseem Behan after taking dinner went to sleep in the otaq. At about 2:30 a.m. they woke-up on some noise and saw six unknown persons with open faces armed with deadly weapons standing inside the otaq. The accused persons controlled upon the complainant party and threatened to remain calm otherwise they would be murdered. Out of them five persons on the show of weapons forcibly kidnapped Ghulam Murtaza, Hazoor Bux and Naseem while one armed person stood upon the complainant. Thereafter all the accused persons went away along with the abductees. After half an hour abductees Hazoor Bux and Naseem returned back and informed the complainant that the accused took them up to some distance and thereafter left them but they took away Ghulam Murtaza. Thereafter , the complainant informed the Police. The Police came there and chased the accused persons but could not find them. After about 20/25 days of the incident the accused persons contacted the complainant through telephone and asked him to arrange one Crore rupees for release of the abductee, failing which the abductee would be murdered and his dead body would be sent. Accused persons from time to time demanded ransom amount, issued threats and asked the complainant not to lodge FIR. Abductee Ghulam Murtaza was not released, therefore the complainant obtained order from the Court and lodged the FIR.
3. The Investigating Officer after completing investigation of the case submitted final report before the competent Court of law. The learned trial. Court observed all legal formalities and framed charge against the appellant and co- accused Ghulam Nabi at Ex.06, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, such pleas were obtained at Exs.7-A and 7-B respectively .
4. To substantiate the charge, prosecu tion examined PW-1, complainant Mohammad Hayat at Ex.08, who produced FIR, further statement, statement under section 162, Cr.P.C. and Photostat copy of letter addressed to SHO P.S Moro, at Ex.8-A to Ex.8-E, PW-2, Naseem Ali at Ex.09, PW-3, Ghulam Murtaza at Ex.10, who produced his 164, Cr.P.C. statement and memo. of securing of Car at Ex.10-A and 10-B. PW-4 Hazoor Bux at Ex.11, who produced memo. of imaginary arrest of appellant Mohammad Aslam at Ex.11-A, PW-5, Ghous Bux at Ex.12, who produced memo. of inspection of place of incident at Ex.12-A, PW-6 ASI Qurban Ali at Ex.13. PW-7, HC Khalid Hussain at Ex.14, who produced death certificate of SIP Arbab Ali Naval, PW-8 Inspector Abdul Majeed Arain at Ex.15, who produced order of investigatio n and memo. of inspection of place of incident at Ex.15-A and 15-B. PW- 09, ASI Mohammad Nooh at Ex.16, who produced letter of SIP Arbab Ali Naval at Ex.16-A, PW-10 Mr. Suhail Ahmed Mashori learned Judicial Magistrate at Ex.17, who produced 164, Cr.P.C. statement of abductee Ghulam Murtaza, application of I.O., another application of I.O. at Exhs.17-A to 17-C. Thereafter , learned DDPP for the State closed the side of prosecution vide statement at Ex.18.
5. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, learned trial Court recorded statement of the appellant/accused as required under section 342, Cr.P.C. at Ex.19, in which he denied the prosecution case and claimed his innocence.
He, further stated that in fact at the time of incident he was in police custody but has been falsely implicated at the instance of one Siyano Dahri, the uncle of his wife, who is on inimical terms with him due to matrimonial affairs. He produced some documents and examined himself on oath and produced DWs, namely , Abdul Ghani. Sher Muhammad, Mehar and Ali Hassan in his defense.
6. The learned trial Court after hearing learned Counsel for the appellant, learned DDPP for the State and appraising the evidence passed impugned judgment.
7. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment is against the law and facts of the case; that there is unexplained delay of four months in lodging the FIR; that neither the names and descriptions of the accused transpire in the FIR and 161, Cr.P.C. statements of prosecution witnesses and nor the identification parade was held before learned Magistra te; that the learned Judge has disbelieved the prosecution evidence in respect of acquitted accused Ghulam Nabi but he relied upon same evidence in respect of the appellant without independent corroboration; that there are material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses which create doubt. He lastly contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt, hence the appellant is entitled to be acquitted.
8. Conversely , learned Counsel for the complainant supported the impugned judgment and submitted that all the PWs have fully supported the prosecution case and there are no material contradictions in their evidence; that no doubt the identification parade was not arranged before learned Magistrate but the appellant was identified in Court by all the witnesses, therefore he prayed for dismissal of instant jail appeal.
9. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General did not support the impugned judgment and conceded for the acquittal of the appellant.
10. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties, learned Deputy Prosecutor General and have examined the material available on record minutely .
11. Perusal of record reflects that the alleged incident occurred on 16.02.2010 but FIR was lodged on 15.06.2010 after four months of the incident but no plausible explanation for such delay has been furnished by the complainant.
The FIR and 161, Cr.P.C. statements of PWs including 161, Cr.P.C. statement of abductee Ghulam Murtaza do not disclose the names and features of the accused. The appellant was arrested in Crime No,213/201 1 offence under section 13(d) Arms Ordinance and on 21.06.201 1, after sixteen months of the incident, and was shown to the complainant and PWs at Police Station, who identified him to be one of the accused. On the same day, i,e, 21.06.201 1, further statement of complainant was recorded wherein he disclosed the name of the appellant while his another further statement was also recorded on 04.07.201 1 in which he disclosed the names of four co-accused persons. It is settled proposition of law that further statement has no value in the law. In this respect reliance can be placed upon case of Khalid Javed and another v . The State 2003 SCMR 1419 , wherein it has been held as under; "With reference to above discussion there is yet another important area of the case which needs elaborate consideration i,e, after how much time from lodging FIR Exh. P/O complainant Naveed Anwar Naveed got recorded supplementary statement Exh. D/B. This aspect of the case engaged our attention quite for some time during hearing because delay in recording supplementary statement would be an important factor which is likely to give rise to an interference that second version contained in it was introduced by the prosecution after deliberation and if it is it will adversely af fect the prosecution case."
12. It is also the case of prosecution that the alleged abductee was released by the accused after five months but his 164, Cr.P.C. statement was recorded on 28.06.201 1 wherein he stated that he identified the appellant in Police lock up. Since, the names of the accused persons were not disclosed in the FIR and 161, Cr.P.C. statements of the PWs, therefore it was necessary that identification parade should have been arranged in presence of learned Magistrate before showing the appellant to the PWs at police lock up. In case of Muhammad Asgar alias Nannah and another v . The State 2010 SCMR 1706 the Honourable Supreme has observed as under: "Thus it is an admitted fact that the appellants were not known to PW-15 therefore in such circumstances the identification of the appellants through PW-15 was essential but no such identification test was held as such in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the identification of the culprits in the court only through such witness carries no weight."
13. The prosecution, examined 04 eye-w itnesses, i,e, complainant Muhammad Hayat, eye-witnesses Naseem, Ghulam Murtaza and Hazoor Bux. Complainant and PW Ghulam Murtaza deposed that the accused were not known to them prior to the incident but PW Naseem deposed that "It is correct that I knew present accused as they are residents of nearby village... It is correct that complainant is my close friend. Voluntarily says that accused are also my friends." PW Hazoor Bux deposed that "It is correct that 1 knew all the accused prior to this incident. The accused are my relatives except accuse d Aslam." Abductee Ghulam Murtaza also deposed that he knew co- accused Ghulam Nabi (acquitted accused) prior to this incident but the complainant party did not disclose the names of accused in FIR and 161, Cr.P.C. statements recorded after four months of the incident, therefore non mentioning the names of accused in FIR and 161, Cr.P.C. statements creates doubt regarding their involvement in the case.
14. So far as the evidence of Investigating Officer, Inspector Abdul Majeed is concerned, his evidence is not helpful to the prosecution case as he deposed that he received copy of FIR on 24.08.2010, inspected place of incident on 25.08.2010, recorded 161, Cr.P.C. statements of PWs Hazoor Bux, Naseem and Ghulam Murtaza. Since, the names of the accused were not disclosed in FIR and 161, Cr.P.C. statements, therefore he submitted report for disposal of the case under untraced 'A' Class. Furthermore, there is no circumstantial evidence in the case, which connect him with the commission of offence. As per prosecution case, neither the abductee was recovered from the appellant in presence of any witness nor crime weapon or ransom amount was recovered from his possession. The appellant was arrested in 13(d) Arms Ordinance case and memo of his imaginary arrest was prepared in this case.
15. Apart from above, there are many contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The complainant deposed that on 15.02.2010 the complainant party went to sleep while PWs Ghulam Murtaza, Naseem and Hazoor Bux deposed that on 16.02.2010 they went to sleep in the otaq. Complainant and Hazoor Bux deposed that at about 2.30 night they heard some noise, opened the door and saw six persons outside the room. Pw Naseem and Ghulam Murtaza deposed that at about 2.30 night some body knocked the door, Hazoor Bux enquired name of visitor to which they introduced themselves to be guest of complainant Muhammad Hayat, the door was opened and at the same time six persons armed with weapons entered into the room. The complainant deposed that after the incident, he informed the police who visited the otaq and followed the culprits but they could not succeed to arrest them but the remaining witnesses have not stated so. On the contrary PW Naseem and Hazoor Bux deposed that when they returned back to otaq found that the door of the otaq was closed, they opened the door, entered the otaq and noticed that hands and legs of the complainant were tied. They untied his hands and legs and narrated the story . The complainant, PW Hazoor Bux deposed that after the demise of the mother of abductee Ghulam Murtaza, the accused persons released him. Abductee Ghulam Murtaza also stated that the accused released him without taking ransom amount but PW Naseem stated that the complainant paid Rs,12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve lacs) to the accused for release of abductee Ghulam Murtaza. The contradictions stated above cannot be ignored while deciding the case and on the basis whereof, no conviction could be recorded but the learned trial Court has not taken into consideration while passing the impugned judgment.
16. Furthermore, it is matter of record that the case against the appellant is identic al to that of co-accused Ghulam Nabi who has been acquitted by learned trial Court which has not been challenged, hence on the same set of evidence cannot be relied upon without independent corroboration which is lacking in the case. In this respect reliance can be placed upon case of Muhammad Akram v. The State (2012 SCMR 440) where in the Honourable Supreme court of Pakistan has held as under: "Since the same set of evidence has been disbelieved qua the involvement of the Mohammad Aslam, as such, the same evidence cannot be relied upon in order to convict the appellant on a capital charge as the statements of both the eye witnesses do not find any corroboration from any piece of independent evidence."
17. The upshot of the above discussion is that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the appellant accused beyond reasonable doubt and it is settled 'proposition of law that for giving benefit of doubt to an accused it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubts, if there is a single circumstance which creates reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused, then the accused will be entitled to the benefit. In this respect, reliance can be placed upon case of Muhammad Mansha v. The State reported in 2018 SCMR 772 , wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has held that: "4. Needless to mention that while giving the benefit of doubt to an accused it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubt. If there is a circumstance which creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then the accused would be entitled to be benefit of such doubt, not as a matter of grace and concession, but as a matter of right. It is based on the maxim, "it is better that ten guilty persons be acquitted rather than one innocent person be convicted". Reliance in this behalf can be made upon the cases of Tarique Parvez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345 ), Ghulam Qadir and 2 others v. The State (2008 SCMR 1221 ), Mohammad Akram v . The State ( 2009 SCMR 230 ) and Mohammad Zaman v . The State ( 2014 SCMR 749 )."
Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, benefit of doubt was extended in favour of the appellant and as a consequence where of instant appeal was allowed by our short order dated 25.09.2018, whereby the appellant was acquitted of the charge and he was directed to be released forthwith if not required in other case. Above are the reasons of our short order .